New Frontiers 5 Selection Options

[volcanopele]

Besides, the redundancy argument didn't stop NASA from selecting two Venus missions, or ESA from selecting another Venus mission shortly afterward. There are also benefits to doing whole system science. Given the delays to NF5, any Io mission would now arrive after JUICE has wrapped up its mission and possibly after EC.

I know you right, it is a bit of an uphill climb, but given NASA's recent history with the Discovery selections, I don't think the issue of other Jupiter-system missions in the early 2030s will be an issue for an Io observer.

[mcaplinger]

Besides, the redundancy argument didn't stop NASA from selecting two Venus missions, or ESA from selecting another Venus mission shortly afterward.

Admittedly, I would not have predicted that outcome either. And ESA's thought process in that case is a mystery to me.

It's not like anyone asked me to participate in an Io proposal, so it makes no difference how I feel about it. At various times I have had to do a ton of work to support proposals that seemed like long shots to me. Most of the time I've been right, but I've been wrong just often enough to make it impossible to write anything off.

[vjkane]

Besides, the redundancy argument didn't stop NASA from selecting two Venus missions, or ESA from selecting another Venus mission shortly afterward. There are also benefits to doing whole system science. Given the delays to NF5, any Io mission would now arrive after JUICE has wrapped up its mission and possibly after EC.

NASA's selection of VERITAS and DAVINCI wasn't surprising since their measurements are complimentary. The EnVision selection was surprising to me. It has three unique instruments compared to VERITAS, but its main instrument is the SAR. From technical descriptions I've read, the design and frequency of VERITAS and EnVision's SARs are substantially different and will result in revealing different features. However, I'm a complete layman when it comes to SAR technologies and measurements, and I don't understand the science value of the different SAR measurements .

[StargazeInWonder]

Veritas's SAR has a wavelength of about 3 cm and Envision's will be about 10 cm, so at the very least they will measure roughness at two different spatial frequencies, so for areas where both instruments map the same area, we will in a sense get two-"color" maps of Venus's roughness. Add in Magellan (12.6 cm) and that will be three "colors." That seems likely to provide some nice characterization of the surface textures, but it's up to the specifics of venusian geography just what science that will result in – just as, in visible light, some areas of various surfaces are colorful, yielding useful information, and some areas are bland.

[mcaplinger]

Veritas's SAR has a wavelength of about 3 cm and Envision's will be about 10 cm, so at the very least they will measure roughness at two different spatial frequencies, so for areas where both instruments map the same area, we will in a sense get two-"color" maps of Venus's roughness. Add in Magellan (12.6 cm) and that will be three "colors."

Fair enough, but that is a back-rationalization, not an explanation of how the two missions were selected. FWIW, I see no evidence that ESA considered synergy with the NASA missions at all. The selections were likely pure coincidence (an ANTZ/BUG'S LIFE situation, if you will.)

We seem to have gone from a perception that Magellan did everything there was to be done (common in the 90s and 00s) to a perception that Magellan data was so awful that redoing Magellan with somewhat higher resolution (Envision claims 30 m/pxl globally and 10 m/pxl in selected regions, Magellan was nominally 75 m/pxl but probably not that good globally) is absolutely revolutionary. It will be interesting to see a new generation of scientists confused by SAR data

I'm sure one can find lengthy descriptions of why Envision SAR will be so much better. Maybe they're even true.

[StargazeInWonder]

I wouldn't try to guess about the details that went into the selection of Envision, but note that at the final decision, after NASA had chosen its two Venus missions, Envision was selected over just one other finalist, so it's even possible that some disqualifying factor regarding that one other proposal boosted Envision by default. Given the short time between the decisions, though, it might also be that Envision had already essentially won before ESA even knew what NASA was doing.

10 m/pix seems like a lot better than 75 m/pix but it comes down to whether or not Venus has some phenomenon that becomes visible with the better resolution. One thing that certainly happens a lot on Venus is for older surface to be embayed by newer lava flows, so better resolution will allow improved relative chronologies. I think, by analogy, of the martian gullies that are apparent at MGS resolution but were not at worse resolution. Does Venus have some phenomenon of interest like that? We'll only know when we have the data. Well, I guess we could scrutinize the backgrounds of the Venera images looking for such justification, but that's a pretty microscopic fraction of the surface, and we know that some of that – like most of Venus – is pretty featureless lava plain.

DAVINCI+ will show us some complex terrain at higher resolution before Envision arrives, so there will be some idea before Envision's data comes in, but way after the selection process.

[vjkane]

Moderators: This discussion is getting a bit off topic. Feel free to move to a better topic.

Last year, I did this table to compare the VERITAS and EnVision missions.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[volcanopele]

Thanks vjkane. Yes, I think at this point further discussion about the different capabilities of the various missions to Venus really should go in the Venus sub-forum, and not here. But I think the point stands that in recent competitions, NASA has been more than willing to send multiple missions to the same or similar target when those missions could answer different scientific questions. Given that, I don't think an Io Observer is hampered by EC or JUICE as neither have an Io focus even if both could observe Io from a distance because an Io Observer would be able to answer scientific questions better than either could. Similarly, an Enceladus mission in this AO wouldn't be hampered by the previous NF selection going to Titan, also in the Saturn system.

[mcaplinger]

...I think the point stands that in recent competitions, NASA has been more than willing to send multiple missions to the same or similar target when those missions could answer different scientific questions.

If you look at the entire history of Discovery and NF mission selections, I'm not sure what conclusions you could draw. IMHO a lot of the selection seems to be done on the basis of non-scientific considerations (cost, cost phasing, mission schedule flexibility, real or perceived technical maturity, NASA center assignment, etc.) To think it's 100% about the science is naive. I'm not accusing anyone here of naivety but it's worth pointing out.

I'm not sure what this discussion is doing under Mars&Missions/Past and Future in the first place. Agreed the Venus-specific stuff could go elsewhere.

[vjkane]

But I think the point stands that in recent competitions, NASA has been more than willing to send multiple missions to the same or similar target when those missions could answer different scientific questions. Given that, I don't think an Io Observer is hampered by EC or JUICE as neither have an Io focus even if both could observe Io from a distance because an Io Observer would be able to answer scientific questions better than either could. Similarly, an Enceladus mission in this AO wouldn't be hampered by the previous NF selection going to Titan, also in the Saturn system.

Reading the tea leaves, perhaps there have been phases in selection biases. For one, remember that the final selection is up to the science AA's choice. There was a time (I believe when GRAIL's selection was part of that period) when there were criticisms that NASA was being too conservative and risk adverse. The current AA seems to be willing to go for bold choices such as Dragonfly.

There also seems to be a willingness to go for themes such as small bodies in the selection of Lucy and Psyche and then DAVINCI and VERITAS. And then to state that subsequent proposals in that theme (such as the multifly asteroid proposal MANITIS) weren't selected to achieve programmatic balance.

One could argue that Venus was excluded from the draft NF5 candidate list based on programmatic balance. (Include NASA, ESA, and India, there are four approved missions in the next decade).

However, this announcement was just posted on the VEXAG site:


Special Notice regarding the Fifth NF5 Community Announcement

On Sept, 7, 2022, NASA released its fifth Community Announcement Advanced Notice regarding the Forthcoming Release of the New Frontiers 5 (NF5) Announcement of Opportunity (Link here: https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/)

In the announcement, the “Venus In Situ Explorer” (“VISE”) theme was omitted from the list of allowed Mission Themes.

VEXAG has requested from the NF5 program office clarification of, and rationale for, this change.

The 12 May 2021 NASA Community Announcement on NF5 indicated that the results of the Decadal Survey would guide the NF5 solicitation, and the Decadal Committee responded on 25 May 2021 that it would retain the existing New Frontiers mission theme list [OWL, p22-30].

As the Venus Assessment Group, we are seeking the thoughts and inputs of the Venus science and technology communities regarding this decision by NASA, so that we may accurately represent your views to the upcoming CAPS meeting in late September, and to NASA as they gather feedback for the NF5 Draft AO, due out in November.

A Google form that can be filled out anonymously is available here: (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDl_4U_3vsi5RYTcMQnK4w684bUKxNbXNSIRc0c2g_tMwMrA/viewform). We hope to compile feedback and discuss by Friday September 23, 2022 ahead of the CAPS meeting. We’ll accept later responses, but can’t guarantee we’ll be able to consider them before CAPS.

NASA wishes to have feedback on the Community Announcement by October 31, 2022.

Sincerely,
Noam Izenberg, Chair, OBO the VEXAG Steering Committee

[nprev]

Topic moved to Exploration Strategy subforum.

[volcanopele]

I saw that announcement... Sigh, what is NASA going to say beyond the obvious: "Because DaVINCI+ was selected for Discovery". If IVO had been selected, it was pretty much a given that Io Observer would've been removed from the NF-5 list.

And yes, Mike, there are lots of considerations that NASA takes into account for mission selection, and they will use all of them to evaluate which mission to select. After being burned twice expecting "programatic balance" to be one of the considerations, it's clear that those other considerations, like *cough* "mission schedule flexibility," seem to be having greater weight.

[vjkane]

Leonard David's latest article states that China has decided to use the Chang'e 6 mission to return samples from the far side of the moon. From previous information when there were at least two regions in contention, China had stated that the far side mission would target the SPA if memory serves me correctly.

This would seem to make a mission being selected by NASA for the NF5 competition for an SPA sample return less likely. The samples from Chang'e 6 likely will have been on Earth for several years before an NF5 mission could launch.

[Explorer1]

It's probably academic, but the Wolf Amendment may be an obstacle to US research on any samples returned by China anyway.
I recall an exception was made for some minimal cooperation with LRO during Chang'e 4's landing, but who knows if physical samples would get a waiver like that. It's dependent on lots of factors which we can't discuss on this forum regardless...

[mcaplinger]

[Chinese plans for lunar sample return] would seem to make a mission being selected by NASA for the NF5 competition for an SPA sample return less likely.

I see very little evidence that Chinese plans have influenced NASA plans in any way. The Chinese have also said they intend to return martian samples by 2031 (see https://www.space.com/china-return-mars-samples-earth-2031 ) but that has had no effect on NASA/ESA's MSR plans.